\nFormally, a covenant is an agreement or legal contract,
\nalthough the word is used more often in the religious arena. \u00a0In
\nfact, in the religious arena, LOTS of agreements get called a
\ncovenant. \u00a0The \u201cmarriage covenant\u201d the \u201ccovenant of the
\nordained\u201d (which, btw, doesn’t actually exist but the powers that
\nbe in the church like to hold us to one anyway), behavior covenants
\nat camp or on mission trips. \u00a0I was a little shocked when John
\nDominic Crossan was here a few years ago to learn that covenants
\naren’t as morally neutral as I’d thought.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nReligious groups use covenant language because our Bible
\ndoes, but it turns out that our Bible uses it because that was the
\nnormal means of making agreements in its day. \u00a0And covenants are
\ninherently power dominant. \u00a0The dominant party sets the standards and
\ntells the less powerful party what the consequences will be if the
\nless powerful party doesn’t meet the standards of the dominant party.
\n It isn’t some particularly holy thing \u2013 it’s a form of agreement
\nbetween unequals, that functions as a means of naming the punishment
\nif the less powerful party doesn’t hold up to their end of the deal.
\n(Which they may not have had much choice about getting into anyway.)<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nThe Hebrew Bible is full of covenants, and almost all of
\nthem have condition in them and punishments delineated as well. \u00a0They
\ntend to say, \u201cIf you do this, then I will be your God and you will
\nbe my people and things are going to be OK. \u00a0If not, then it follows
\nthat the inverse will happen.\u201d \u00a0However, today we are talking about
\nthe exceptions. \u00a0The first exception is in the covenant made with
\nAbraham, mostly.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nThe story of Abraham’s covenant appears 3 times in \n<\/p>\n \nThat covenant is the one most like what we hear in \n<\/p>\n \nHowever, Jeremiah 31 is the middle of three hopeful \nThe days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will \n<\/p>\n \nThe comparison for the \u201cnew covenant\u201d are the \n<\/p>\n \nThe part that is particularly inspiring to me is, \u201c No \n<\/p>\n \nThe final line is both really powerful in its original \n<\/p>\n \nNow, as the Christian Tradition has strongly claimed \n<\/p>\n \nThe \u201cnew covenant\u201d of Jeremiah in some ways reminds \n<\/p>\n \nA while ago, one night at Bible Study we came across our \nHoly are you, and blessed is your Son Jesus \n<\/p>\n \nThe second time is when the communion cup is named and \nWhen the supper was over, he took the cup, \n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \nThose who had grown up hearing those words, over and \n<\/p>\n \nIn addition to showing up in our communion liturgy, the \n<\/p>\n \nSomeday, may it fully be so. \u00a0Amen <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Rev. Sara E. Baron<\/p>\n \nFirst United Methodist Church of Schenectady <\/p>\n 603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 <\/p>\n Pronouns: she\/her\/hers <\/p>\n http:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/<\/a>\u00a0 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nGenesis, and in 2 of the 3 versions it is unconditional. \u00a0The the
\n3rd<\/sup>, it is conditional on circumcision. \u00a0The three
\nversions relate to the three different \u201cvoices\u201d in Genesis, and
\nthis story is important enough that all three versions are known and
\ntold. \u00a0My favorite is the Priestly version in Genesis 15, whereby God
\nintentionally takes on the roles of both the powerful and the
\npowerless in covenant making and thereby takes all the responsibility
\nfor the relationship continuing to work.<\/p>\n
\nJeremiah 31, where we hear of the \u201cnew covenant.\u201d \u00a0Jeremiah is
\ngenerally considered a downer prophet, as his role was to say that if
\nthe nation of Israel didn’t change its ways, it was going to be
\ndestroyed.\n<\/p>\n
\nchapters whereby the prophet names that after the destruction that
\nwould come, an even better relationship with God would be possible.
\nThe hope is even more potent in the midst of the the rest of the
\nbook, and its threats of dire destruction. \u00a0The particulars of the
\nnew covenant are worth noting. \u00a0Let’s hear that part again:<\/p>\n\n
\nmake a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
\nIt will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors
\nwhen I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt\u2014a
\ncovenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord.
\nBut this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
\nafter those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I
\nwill write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they
\nshall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to
\neach other, \u2018Know the Lord\u2019, for they shall all know me, from the
\nleast of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive
\ntheir iniquity, and remember their sin no more.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\ncovenants in the Torah. \u00a0In those covenants God made promises to the
\npeople that were CONTINGENT on the people upholding their promises to
\nGod. In this new covenant God takes all the responsibility on God’s
\nself. \u00a0The people don’t have to learn, or memorize, or interpret the
\nTorah because God will \u201cput it within them\u201d and \u201cwrite it on
\ntheir hearts.\u201d \u00a0And in this way the people and God will be
\ninseparable.<\/p>\n
\nlonger shall they teach one another, or say to each other, \u2018Know
\nthe Lord\u2019, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to
\nthe greatest.\u201d \u00a0God’s self is not entirely knowable within the
\nhuman realm, and it is easy to get lost in figuring out God even when
\nwe’re trying our hardest. \u00a0The idea that everyone could know, and
\nintuit the goodness and love of God AND act out God’s kindom is
\nreally powerful.<\/p>\n
\ncontext, and likely the reason that the Christian Tradition has so
\nstrongly claimed this text. \u00a0The line is, \u201cfor I will forgive their
\niniquity, and remember their sin no more.\u201d \u00a0For those who heard
\nJeremiah, and for those who complied his remembered speeches into a
\nbook, the reason for the exile was that the people had been
\nunfaithful to the covenant with God. \u00a0They had not followed the Torah
\nlaws, they had allowed the rich and powerful to abuse the poor and
\npowerless, and they had forgotten God’s will. \u00a0Whether or not that
\nwas the reason for the exile, it is the reason that is assumed within
\nthe book. \u00a0To forgive iniquity and sin, then, was a form of
\nrestoration. \u00a0To continually forgive iniquity and forget sin is to
\ntake away the threat of punishment and create the hope of security.<\/p>\n
\nauthority over God’s forgiveness of sins, it makes a lot of sense
\nthat it has strongly claimed this \u201cold\u201d (by the standards of
\nChristianity) idea of the \u201cnew\u201d covenant. \u00a0However, claiming
\nJeremiah’s vision of the new covenant is a really radical claim for
\nChristianity to make! \u00a0Sure, Christianity also claims that we and God
\nhave made an eternal covenant, God is our God and we are God’s
\npeople. \u00a0That one is easy. \u00a0We also claim forgiveness, that fits.
\nBut we aren’t yet in a time, as far as I know, where we are past
\nhaving to teach each other of God and God’s goodness. \u00a0Nor are we
\nliving in a time when all people intuit and live out right action
\nthat allows the kindom to come and continue.<\/p>\n
\nme of the kindom itself \u2013 it is here and now! \u00a0But it is here and
\nnow IN PART and we are working towards the day when it is here and
\nnow in completion! \u00a0I love, though, that Christianity is claimed this
\ndeep and profound dream as ours. \u00a0Of course, I hope we all remember
\nthat the dream is one from our Hebrew Bible and we don’t have a
\nunilateral claim to it.<\/p>\n
\nGospel passage for today, and someone raised a question, \u201cWhat is
\nthis ‘new covenant’ thing?\u201d \u00a0The answer referred us to the Jeremiah
\npassage. For a lot of people present that night, things CLICKED. \u00a0The
\nUnited Methodist communion liturgy refers to the new covenant twice.
\nThe first time it shows up describing the life and ministry of Jesus
\nwhere it says:<\/p>\n\n
\nChrist.
…
By the baptism of his suffering, death, and
\nresurrection
you gave birth to your Church,
delivered us from
\nslavery to sin and death,
and made with us a new covenant
by
\nwater and the Spirit.
When the Lord Jesus ascended,
he promised
\nto be with us always,
in the power of your Word and Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nraised, where it says:<\/p>\n\n
gave
\nthanks to you, gave it to his disciples, and said:
“Drink
\nfrom this, all of you;
this is my blood of the new
\ncovenant,
poured out for you and for many
for the
\nforgiveness of sins.
Do this, as often as you drink it,
in
\nremembrance of me.”<\/p>\n
\nover, without context, were excited to know the context of it. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nconcept of the New Covenant is also found in our language for our
\nScriptures. \u00a0The so-called New Testament which is alternative
\nlanguage for, yep you got it, \u201cNew Covenant.\u201d \u00a0Our Bible itself
\nclaims that the stories of Jesus and the early church ARE the stories
\nof the new covenant of Jeremiah being lived out on earth. \u00a0And, I
\nthink this is claimed because it is believed. \u00a0And, I think the claim
\nthat our faith tradition is an expression of Jeremiah’s \u201cNew
\nCovenant\u201d is both excessive and hopeful.\n<\/p>\n
https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FUMCSchenectady<\/a><\/p>\n